DECISIONS OF CENTRAL INFORMATION …andssw1.and.nic.in/.../3278CIC_Decisions_in_Andaman.docx · Web...
57
DECISIONS OF CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION IN ANDAMAN Upto June 2013
Transcript of DECISIONS OF CENTRAL INFORMATION …andssw1.and.nic.in/.../3278CIC_Decisions_in_Andaman.docx · Web...
DECISIONS OF CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION IN ANDAMAN Upto June 2013
2
Compiled by:
T N Krishnamoorthi,Deputy Chief Engineer,
Andaman Lakshadweep Harbour Works.Little Andaman.
1. Action Taken Note:......................................................................................................................8
a. Ajay Prasad Vs Andaman & Nicobar Admn......................................................8
b. Chitta Kumari Vs Andaman Public Works Department.............................8
c. Anup Kumar Biswas Vs Deputy Commissioner(SA)....................................9
d. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Education:........................................................................92. Agreed list:....................................................................................................................................9
a. RK Singh Vs A & N Admn...........................................................................................................9
b. Akshay Pant Vs Dy Secretary Vigilance...........................................................10
3. Answer Sheet:............................................................................................................................10
a. Rajya Lakshmi Vs Andaman Public Works Department..................................10
4. Asset Details:..............................................................................................................................10
a. K Eswar Rao Vs Andaman & Nicobar Police..................................................10
b. Akshay Pant Vs Social Welfare Department...............................................10
c. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Education:......................................................................12
5. Attested Copy:...........................................................................................................................12
a. Hamza Vs Indian Council for Medical Research..........................................12
b. Hamza Vs Indian Council for Medical Research..........................................12
6. Audit Objections:..............................................................................................................12
a. NKP Nair Vs Co operative Department.............................................................12
7. Cannot be provided:...................................................................................................................12
a. Thamada Eswara Rao Vs Directorate of Tourism...................................................12
8. Cash Book:............................................................................................................................12
a. Shree Kumar Vs Rajya Sainik Board..................................................................12
9. Caste Certificate:..............................................................................................................12
a. Patel Dhirubhai Vs Andaman Public Works Department.......................12
10. Clear understanding of application:.......................................................................................12
a. P Kannan Vs Andaman Public Works Department....................................12
11. Delay due to Leave:.....................................................................................................12
a. Abdul Ghafoor Vs Deputy Commissioner SA...............................................12
12. Delay due to problems of Communication:...................................................12
a. S K Roy Vs Health Services...................................................................................12
13. Delay due to shifting of Records:............................................................................................12
a. N S Rajagopal Vs Department of Education...........................................................12
14. Delay due to Summer Vacation:...........................................................................12
3
a. Ghatak Vs Dr BR Ambedkar Polytechnic.........................................................12
15. Delay due to Tsunami Restoration:........................................................................................12
a. Lingamaiya Vs A & N Admn...................................................................................12
16. Disciplinary Action:......................................................................................................12
a. P Kannan Vs Asst Commissioner, Port Blair.................................................12
17. Enquiry report :..............................................................................................................12
a. Vincent Walter Vs Police Department..............................................................12
18. Survey Number:.............................................................................................................12
a. Mohan Rao Vs Deputy Commissioner SA......................................................12
19. False Information:.................................................................................................................12
a. Saravana Kumar Vs Department of Social Welfare..................................12
20. Fee as Indian Postal Order:..................................................................................................12
a. Arun Marudavanan Vs Directorate of Tourism..........................................12
21. Grievances:.............................................................................................................................12
a. PR Cheshaiah Vs A & Admn...................................................................................12
b. Chandra Kesh Rai Vs A & N Admn......................................................................12
c. Ram Narayan Vs M/o Home Affairs....................................................................12
d. K Rangaiah Vs Directorate of Industries........................................................12
e. Anand Raj Vs Andaman Public Works Department...................................12
22. Hearing must in First Appeal:...............................................................................12
a. SK Guptha Vs Andaman Nicobar Police.........................................................12
23. Information in CD:................................................................................................................12
a. K Eswara Rao Vs Police Department.................................................................12
24. Information on Free of Cost:................................................................................................12
a. Ajay Nayak Vs Gram Panchayat, Bambooflat.............................................12
25. Information to send by Speed Post:..................................................................12
a. Mohemmad Rafiq Vs Indian Council for Medical Research.................12
26. Infructuous:............................................................................................................................12
a. Prabhuram Vs MG Govt College, Mayabunder......................................................................12
27. Inspection of Records:...............................................................................................12
a. MP Kamaraj Vs Port Management Board..............................................................12
28. Leave Records:.......................................................................................................................12
a. K Eswar Rao Vs Andaman & Nicobar Police..................................................12
b. Vinaya Kumar Vs Andaman Public Works Department...........................12
4
29. Letter addressed to CS:.........................................................................................................12
a. Patel Dhirubhai Vs Andaman Public Works Department.......................12
30. List of officers of doubt integrity:.........................................................................................12
a. V. Sarvana Kumar Vs Asst Secretary (Vigilance)...................................................................12
31. Missing Files:...........................................................................................................................12
a. Dr B Prabhuram Vs MG College, Mayabunder......................................................12
32. No knowledge in RTI:..............................................................................................................12
a. Tipu Singh Vs Andaman Public Works Department.........................................12
33. No Penalty for Retired Employee:.......................................................................12
a. RPJK Daniel Vs Tourism Department...............................................................12
34. Not Available Records:..........................................................................................................12
a. Tapan Kumar Das Vs A & N Admn......................................................................12
b. Akshay Pant Vs Health Services.........................................................................12
c. PS Saboo Vs Vigilance Department..................................................................12
d. Rajendra Pal Vs Andaman Public Works Department.............................12
e. Prafulla Kumar Daas Vs Asst Commissioner, Mayabunder..................12
f. Muneer Ahamed Vs Registrar of Coop Societies........................................12
g. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Education.............................................................12
35. Not easily available:....................................................................................................12
a. Shamshad Ali Vs Asst Commissioner SA Dist..............................................12
b. Shamshad Ali Vs Asst Commissioner SA Dist...............................................12
36. Passenger List (Helicopter):...................................................................................12
a. PS Saboo Vs Directorate of Tourism................................................................12
37. Personal Information:...........................................................................................................12
a. Rama Krishna Rao Vs Naval Ship Repair Yard........................................................12
38. Proof of Identity:...........................................................................................................12
a. CS Usha Vs Paradip Port Trust...................................................................................12
39. Punishments imposed:............................................................................................................12
a. Sheshrao Manikaro Mane Vs A& N Command.......................................................................12
40. Qualification details:...................................................................................................12
a. Suraj Vaidya Vs Andaman Public Works Department..............................12
b. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Education:......................................................................12
41. Retention Period:....................................................................................................................12
a. Dr Pradeep Singh Vs Union Public Service Commission........................12
5
42. Section 4:...........................................................................................................................12
a. Saboo Vs Andaman Public Works Department............................................12
b. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Industries............................................................12
c. S Gopinathan Vs Education Directorate..........................................................12
d. Saboo Vs Gram Panchayat & Education Directorate...............................12
43. Section 8:................................................................................................................................12
a. Prohit Mohan Lal Vs Health Services..............................................................12
44. Section 8(1)(d):........................................................................................................................12
a. SK Mazumdar Vs State Bank of India................................................................12
b. Dr Pradeep Singh Vs Union Public Service Commission........................12
45. Section 8(1)(e):........................................................................................................................12
a. Dr Pradeep Singh Vs Union Public Service Commission........................12
46. Section 8(1)(g):.......................................................................................................................12
a. Sujit Kumar Mazumder Vs CBI..............................................................................12
47. Section 8(1)(h):.......................................................................................................................12
a. SK Guptha Vs Andaman Nicobar Police.........................................................12
b. Sujit Kumar Mazumder Vs CBI..............................................................................12
c. Akshay Pant Vs Department of Social Welfare..........................................12
d. VC Guptha Vs Andaman Nicobar Police.........................................................12
48. Section 8(1)(j):........................................................................................................................12
a. SK Mazumdar Vs State Bank of India................................................................12
b. Inder Nath Vs ICDS Projects...................................................................................12
c. Sujit Kumar Mazumder Vs CBI..............................................................................12
d. P Kannan Vs Tehsidar Port Blair..........................................................................12
49. Sensitise:...........................................................................................................................12
a. Chachayea Vs Port Management Board..........................................................12
50. Signature of FAA:....................................................................................................................12
a. Tapan Kumar Das Vs A & N Administration............................................................................12
51. Study leave:.....................................................................................................................12
a. Tapan Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture................................................12
52. Sub-judice:...............................................................................................................................12
a. Niyarjan Soreng Vs Dept of Environment & Forest.................................12
53. Third Party:......................................................................................................................12
a. Siva Balan Vs Directorate of Economics & Statistics.............................12
6
54. Time Limit for FAA:.............................................................................................................12
a. Tapan Kumar Das Vs A & N Administration............................................................................12
b. Zainudin Vs Andaman Public Works Department...................................................................12
55. Transfer of RTI Application:....................................................................................12
a. PS Saboo Vs Directorate of Tourism................................................................12
56. Twenty Year old Information:................................................................................12
a. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Industries............................................................12
57. Vacancy Register:.........................................................................................................12
a. Chella Perumal Vs Andaman Public Works Department........................12
58. Voluminous:.....................................................................................................................12
a. Chandran Vs Asst Commissioner, SA Dist......................................................12
b. P Kannan Vs Deputy Commissioner, SA Dist..............................................12
c. P Kannan Vs Port Blair Municipal Council......................................................12
d. P Kannan Vs Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs.........................................12
e. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Industries............................................................12
f. Vinit Naidu Vs Social Welfare & APWD 25-06-2013..................................12
59. Water Connection:.......................................................................................................12
a. Raj Pal Vs Andaman Public Works Department..........................................12
60. Withdrawn the Second Appeal:............................................................................12
a. Dr Vijay Thiyagi Vs District Magistrate.....................................................................12
7
DECISIONS OF CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION IN
ANDAMAN
1. Action Taken Note:
a. Ajay Prasad Vs Andaman & Nicobar Admn.
“... If a representation, application or complaint is not on the file this should be stated. If however it is on the file but there is no evidence of any having been taken on it, appellant should be informed accordingly. In the instant case the PIO states that the representation is on the file but there is no record of any action having been taken on these...”
CIC/SM/A/2011/001150/SG/15170Dated 13-10-2011
b. Chitta Kumari Vs Andaman Public Works Department
“....The information regarding query-1 (Action taken Note ) has not been provided since the officials in the Administration appears to be completely incompetent to understand where this information would be. The Commission therefore directs the PIO of the Chief Secretary’s Office to provide the information on the Action on the Appellant Complaint of 01/12/2010 in the following format:
Date on which
Complaint received
Name and designation of the
officer receiving it.
Action taken
Date on which forwarded to
Next officer/office.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided....”CIC/SG/A/2011/002292/15898 Dated 24-11-2011
8
c. Anup Kumar Biswas Vs Deputy Commissioner(SA).
“... The respondent states that after the order of the FAA no information had been provided to the Appellant. No reason has been given at the hearing by the respondent for not providing the information after the order by the FAA. The Appellant had applied for a Bar License in September 2009 and despite a lapse of two years the license has neither been given nor rejected. It is shameful that for two years the administrative system is not able to either give the license of reject it if necessary with reasons. The Commission now directs the PIO to provide the information in the following format and also transfer the RTI application to Tehsildar Hut Bay, Chief Fire Officer and SP of Police who must provide the information in the same format for the period during which the reference has been with them:
Date on which
Application received
Name and designation of the officer receiving
it.
Action taken
Date on which forwarded to Next
officer/office.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the application ....”
CIC/SM/A/2011/001110/SG/15168 Dated 13-10-2011
d. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Education:
“... as far as the educational qualification of the said officer is concerned, he shall provide whatever details are available in the service records of the officer and in regard to the action, if any, taken against him by the authorities, the copy of the said order...”
CIC/SM/A/2013/000038 Dated 25-06-2013.
2. Agreed list:
a. RK Singh Vs A & N Admn
“... The Commission heard both the parties and noted that the Appellant had asked for certified copies of the Agreed list for the year 2002-02 together with file notings related thereto. The Commission recalled an earlier similar case (Order No. CIC/MA/2006/00116 dated 1 May 2006) in which it decided that the Agreed List was not to be disclosed
9
as it was not in public interest. Accordingly, the same applies in the present case also....”
CIC/OK/A/2008/00754 Dated 25-09-2008.
b. Akshay Pant Vs Dy Secretary Vigilance
“....The PIO has no justified the denial by any of the provisions by the RTI Act. He has not even attempted to state which exemption under Section 8(1) would apply in the instant case. There is no need to an appellant to show any great public interest unless the information is exempt under the provisions of Section 8(1)....”
CIC/SM/A/2010/001391/SG/14336 Dated 29-08-2011
3. Answer Sheet:
a. Rajya Lakshmi Vs Andaman Public Works Department
“... The Appellant has been able to do an inspection of the answer sheets of the three candidates but states that answer sheets of other 09 successful candidates have not been shown to her. The Commission directs the First Appellate Authority (FAA) who is holding the answer sheets to facilitate an inspection of these answer sheets by the Appellant on 04/04/2012 from 10.30Am onwards at the office of the FAA...”
CIC/SG/A/2012/000192/17685 Dated 14-03-2012
4. Asset Details:
a. K Eswar Rao Vs Andaman & Nicobar Police.
“... Information has not been provided to the Appellant on queries 2 (a), (b) & (c). The PIO has initially stated that information with regard to 2 (a), (b) &(c) is NIL and the FAA has claimed it is third party information. Information regarding Public Servants and leaves taken by them or their assets is information which is not exempted under any of the provisions of Section 8(1)...”
CIC/SM/A/2011/001471/SG/15173 Dated 13-10-2011
b. Akshay Pant Vs Social Welfare Department.
“... Commission has held in numerous decisions that the details of assets and assets of public servants cannot be considered to be exempt as decided in no. CIC/AT/A/2008/01262/SG/2109 dated 27/02/2009 that the assets of public servants would have to be disclosed when a citizen uses the Right to Information.
The Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed under Section 8 (1) of the act. The PIO has claimed that the information should not be disclosed since it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j).
10
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:"information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:"
To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:1. It must be personal information.
Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common language we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions, organisations or corporates. (Hence we could state that Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.).
The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have some relationship to a Public activity. Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity.
We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade on the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisos of the law apply, always with certain safeguards. Therefore it can be argued that where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy. Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, -which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants,- cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-tapping. Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified. Besides the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to declare their property details. If people who aspire to be public servants
11
must declare their property details it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants must be considered to be disclosable. Hence the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) cannot be applied in the instant case.
CIC/SG/A/2011/002237/15855 Dated 23-11-2011
c. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Education:
“... the Appellant cannot get the copies of the property returns or the IT statements of the officer concerned because both these items happen to be personal in nature. In the Girish Deshpande case, the Supreme Court has also ruled that such informationcannot be ordinarily disclosed...”
CIC/SM/A/2013/000038 Dated 25-06-2013.
5. Attested Copy:
a. Hamza Vs Indian Council for Medical Research.
“... As regards non supply of attested copies of documents , the PIO should supply attested copies of documents to the Appellant. With regard to the Appellant’s allegation that he has been furnished irrelevant documents, it is noted that the Appellant had demanded copy of the entire file which the PIO had supplied to him. Thus, there is no question of furnishing extra or unnecessary documents...”
CIC/AD/A/2011/000306 Dated 08-03-2011
b. Hamza Vs Indian Council for Medical Research.
“.... The Appellant also states that the information to him earlier has not been attested duly. The Commission warns all PIOs that if unattested copies sent to the Appellants, the Commission will invoke Section 20(1) of the RTI Act....”
CIC/AD/A/2011/001414/SG/14828 Dated 23-09-2011
6. Audit Objections:
a. NKP Nair Vs Co operative Department
“...We do not agree that the audit objections against the said Cooperative Society can be treated as a commercial confidence or trade secret to be withheld from the public under the exemption provisions of Section 8(1) (d). It is a public body and its affairs must be conducted with transparency. Audit objections pointed out by the auditors should be placed in the public domain to ensure that the Society is run prudently and efficiently. In fact, it is in public interest that such information is disclosed. The same Section clearly states that even commercial confidence or
12
trade secret can be disclosed if it would serve a larger public interest. We are satisfied that in public interest the desired information should be disclosed...”
CIC/OK/A/2009/000073SM Dated 29-04-2010
7. Cannot be provided:
a. Thamada Eswara Rao Vs Directorate of Tourism.
“...The Commission heard both the parties and noted that the RTI-application of the Applicant was treated in a most casual and dismissive manner. Thus, for items raised in the RTI-application from nos. 6 to 9, the bland reply was “Cannot be Provided”. The Commission regards this as a case of willful denial/suppression of information and decides to issue a Show Cause Notice to the PIO to explain why a penalty of Rs.10,000/- not be imposed upon him for such casual treatment of the application leading to willful denial/suppression of information...”
CIC/OK/A/2008/00692 Date 25-09-2008
8. Cash Book:
a. Shree Kumar Vs Rajya Sainik Board.
“... Although he admitted to have received some details about the cash transactions, he wanted to have the photocopy of the relevant pages from the cash book. We do not see any problem in providing him with the copy of the relevant pages from the cash book covering the period from the date the Secretary took over till the date of the RTI application. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to forward to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order the photocopy of the relevant pages of the cash book...”
CIC/LS/A/2009/000985SM Date 16-06-20109. Caste Certificate:
a. Patel Dhirubhai Vs Andaman Public Works Department
“....Similarly, the caste certificates of some of the employees cannot be also denied by claiming it to be in the nature of personal information. If the caste certificate is the basis for employment in the government, it must be available in the public domain just as the essential educational qualifications of the government employees should be available when demanded...”
CIC/SM/A/2010/000196 Dated 12-10-2010.
13
10. Clear understanding of application:
a. P Kannan Vs Andaman Public Works Department.
“... After carefully considering the facts of the case, we find that the CPIO had handled this matter rather very casually. The Appellant had sought the information from the Executive Engineer, PBCC, that is, only from one circle of the APWD. The CPIO should have directly called for this information from the respective Circle Office and provided to the Appellant instead of scouting for this information from all over which caused some delay in this case. Therefore, we would like the CPIO to be very careful in future and act only after clearly understanding the scope and extent of the information sought...”
CIC/SM/A/2013/000145 Dated 25-06-2013
11. Delay due to Leave:
a. Abdul Ghafoor Vs Deputy Commissioner SA.
“... In his written explanation, the then CPIO had submitted that the delay had been caused because of the Tahsildar, Ferrarganj to whom the RTI application had been forwarded promptly. Today, the Tahsildar, Ferrarganj was present in the studio and submitted that at the time the application had reached his office, he was on leave and that another officer was in charge. He further submitted that that officer had collected the information and had signed the papers for transmission to the designated CPIO. It seems the relevant assistant in the office of the Tahsildar, Ferrarganj took another 15 days in despatching the papers to the CPIO. All this resulted in the eventual delay in this case. The present CPIO submitted that the delay was not intentional and that in the farflung offices in Andamans, the awareness about the role and responsibility of various officers and employees in delivering information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was rather very low then and that, presently, the situation had improved considerably and that he was taking special care to ensure that no delay occurred....”
CIC/SM/A/2010/000676 Dated 22-02-2011
12. Delay due to problems of Communication:
a. S K Roy Vs Health Services.
14
“... On the question of delay, the Respondent explained that the desired information was held in the office of the DRC/TIO, Andaman and Nicobar Bhavan in New Delhi and it took so much time to get this information from there. It seems because of the distance and problems of communication between the islands and the mainland, so much time was taken in this case. We are satisfied with this explanation and, therefore, do not think the CPIO was at fault for the delay...”
CIC/SM/A/2010/000803 Dated 17-01-2011
13. Delay due to shifting of Records:
a. N S Rajagopal Vs Department of Education.
“... Respondents stated that there had been a delay in their response because of shifting of records in the office. Under the circumstances, the Commission directs the Respondents to supply the detailed information as asked for by the Appellant by 14 October 2008. The Respondents are warned to be more careful in dealing with the RTI-applications in future...”
CIC/OK/A/2008/00798 Date 25-09-2008
14. Delay due to Summer Vacation:
a. Ghatak Vs Dr BR Ambedkar Polytechnic.
“... Regarding the delay in the matter, they submitted that it was summer vacation in the Polytechnic and since the RTI application had been preferred in the Secretariat, the desired information could be collected only after the vacation was over and, consequently, there was this delay. They assured that it was not intentional and would not be repeated in future. In view of this explanation, we do not propose to impose any penalty on the CPIO for the delay...”
CIC/SM/A/2009/000816 Dated 16-06-2010
15. Delay due to Tsunami Restoration:
a. Lingamaiya Vs A & N Admn.
“... The Commission in its previous Order had directed the PIO to Show Cause as to why penalty under Section 20(1) not be levied on him for not complying with the provisions of the RTI Act. In this connection, the Commission received a detailed reply from the Dy. Commissioner, South Andaman District. The Respondent submitted that the delay took place because entire District Administration had been working overtime for setting the ex-gratia claims and other rehabilitation matters arising out of the massive tsunami and the earthquake that struck these islands. The
15
Commission accepts the submission of the Respondent and drops the penalty proceedings...”
CIC/OK/C/2006/00050 Dated: 31-07-2008
16. Disciplinary Action:
a. P Kannan Vs Asst Commissioner, Port Blair.
“... As decided by the Supreme Court in the SLP No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish R Deshpande vs CIC & others), the details regarding the disciplinary action against any government employee are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of section 8(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and should not be ordinarily disclosed. However, in the present case, all the officials about when the Appellant has sought the information are field level revenue officials and their conduct has considerable implications for the people living in their respective jurisdiction. Therefore, if there are complaints against these people and the authorities have initiated enquiries into those complaints, it would be in larger public interest, if this information is disclosed.
6. Keeping the above facts in view, we direct the CPIO to write to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order and to inform him about the nature of the complaint against each one of these officials and status of the disciplinary action, if any, presently under way...”
CIC/SM/A/2013/000143 Dated 25-06-2013
17. Enquiry report :
a. Vincent Walter Vs Police Department
“...We direct the CPIO now to provide to the Appellant a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the SP (Anticorruption) as well as a copy of the final orders passed by the competent authority on the matter within 10 working days from the receipt of this order....”
CIC/SM/A/2009/001011 Dated 12-05-2010
18. Survey Number:
a. Mohan Rao Vs Deputy Commissioner SA.
“...We carefully perused the information sent by the Tahsildar and noted that there was a clear error in the survey number as mentioned by the Appellant in his RTI
16
application. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the delay was not intentional and was reasonable...”
CIC/SM/C/2009/001021 Dated 05-10-2010
19.False Information:
a. Saravana Kumar Vs Department of Social Welfare.
“... The PIO of the Social Welfare Department has stated that the file which the Appellant wants to inspect has been washed away in the Tsunami. The appellant states that the Tsunami did not affect the office of the Social Welfare Department at all and alleges that the PIO has given a false statement. The Commission directs the PIO of the Social Welfare Department to give an affidavit to the Appellant stating that the file required by the Appellant has been damaged by Tsunami. He will also give an attested photocopy of any internal communication in which it has been recorded that some office files were damaged in the Tsunami. The PIO will also send a photocopy of the affidavit to the Commission before 30 September 2011. If the PIO fails to give this affidavit to the Appellant before 25 September 2011, the Commission will initiate penalty proceedings against the PIO of Social Welfare Department for providing false information...”
CIC/SM/A/2010/001437/SG/14377 Date 30-08-2011
20. Fee as Indian Postal Order:
a. Arun Marudavanan Vs Directorate of Tourism.
“... The PIO has rightly refused to accept the RTI Application since there was no IPO in the name of Accounts Officer along with the Application as mandated by Rule 3 of Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005. Rule 3 very clearly provides that:
“A request for obtaining information under subsection (1) of Section 6 shall be accompanied by an application fee of Rs. 10/-by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts officer of the public authority”.
Therefore, the Commission sees no justification in interfering with the order of the PIO in the refusal to accept the RTI application of the Complainant...”
CIC/SM/C/2010/001189/SG/18482 Date 19-04-2012.
21. Grievances:
a. PR Cheshaiah Vs A & Admn..
17
“... The Commission advises the Appellant to take up his grievance in case the matter is not yet solved with the higher authorities in the Department itself...”
CIC/OK/C/2007/00488 Dated 30-09-2008.
b. Chandra Kesh Rai Vs A & N Admn.
“... During the hearing, the Appellant continued to maintain that this was a banned activity and that the lifting of the sand from this area continued. He wanted the Commission to take action on the matter. The Commission clarified that this was not within the jurisdiction of this Bench and advised the Appellant to approach the appropriate fora like the Police in case it was a criminal activity or the Courts...”
CIC/OK/A/2007/001394 Dated 30-09-2008.
c. Ram Narayan Vs M/o Home Affairs.
“.... Grievance, if any, of the Appellant cannot be addressed under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. If the Appellant so desires he can file a complaint before the Competent Authority in this regard...”
CIC/WB/A/2009/000347 Dated 12-05-2010.
d. K Rangaiah Vs Directorate of Industries.
“... If he has a grievance against the Administration, he has to approach the appropriate authority either locally or in the Government of India for relief and redressal...”
CIC/SM/A/2010/000273 Dated 12-10-2010.
e. Anand Raj Vs Andaman Public Works Department.
“....The Appellant admits that he has received all the information. He however has a grievance that he has not been promoted. The Commission has no jurisdiction in this matter and the Appellant is advised to approach some appropriate forum for this....”
CIC/SM/A/2011/00772/SG/16144 Dated 07-12-2011
22. Hearing must in First Appeal:
a. SK Guptha Vs Andaman Nicobar Police.
“.... The Appellant submitted that the Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal without providing him an opportunity of hearing. If it is so, it is not desirable. The Appellate Authority must provide an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant before finally passing any order...”
CIC/SM/A/2009/001472 Dated 29-06-2010.
23. Information in CD:
18
a. K Eswara Rao Vs Police Department
“...The Appellant states that he has received the information but his grievance is that it has not been provided on a CD. Section 7(9) of the RTI Act states that, “information shall be ordinarily be provided in the form it has been sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority…..”. It appears that the information sought by the Appellant is unlikely to be available on the computer and hence information available has been provided to him based on the available records....”
CIC/SG/A/2011/001906/15290 Dated 24-10-2011.
24. Information on Free of Cost:
a. Ajay Nayak Vs Gram Panchayat, Bambooflat.
“...From the appeal of the appellant it appears that the information has not been received by him. The PIO is also warned that once a period of 35 days is over (including 05 days for transfer of RTI Application) the information has to be sent free of cost to the Appellant...”
CIC/SG/A/2012/001450/19374 Dated: 27-06-2012.
25. Information to send by Speed Post:
a. Mohemmad Rafiq Vs Indian Council for Medical Research.
“... The respondent claims that he had sent the information on 11/07/2011 to the Appellant. The respondent claims that the information was sent by ordinary post but the Appellant claims he has not received this. The Commission directs the PIO to ensure that all communications in RTI are sent by speed post. The Commission needs to point out that an appeal and its hearing cost the public exchequer a very large amount of money and therefore it would be prudent to send all communications under RTI by Speed Post...”
CIC/SG/A/2011/002704/16353 Date 15-12-2011.
26. Infructuous:
a. Prabhuram Vs MG Govt College, Mayabunder.
“.... the Appellant is advised to take up his case with the appropriate fora, which may include the higher authorities in the Department itself or the Courts. The RTI-application also contained such questions as “for which type of quarter the undersigned has requested vide his application dated 13 September 2007”. The Commission finds it extremely strange to say the least. It is as if the Appellant does not know what kind of application he
19
himself submitted to the authorities, and advises the Appellant to desist from asking such infructuous questions in an RTI-application...”
CIC/OK/A/2007/01395 Dated 30-09-2008.
27. Inspection of Records:
a. MP Kamaraj Vs Port Management Board.
“... Obviously, photocopying more than 2000 pages of information will put a strain on the resources of any public authority. The ports in the Andaman and Nicobar islands are not particularly large and their resources are quite limited. Besides, it appears that the Appellant himself may not be too willing to pay for the cost of photocopying as evident from the fact that he has not responded to the CPIO yet. In this background, we think it would be in everybody's interest if the Appellant is allowed to inspect the relevant records wherever these are available. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date(s) and to allow him to inspect all the records relevant to his queries. After inspection, if the Appellant would choose to get the photocopies of some of the documents, the CPIO shall provide the same to him against the payment of the prescribed photocopying charges....”
CIC/SM/A/2010/000308 Date 12-10-2010.
28. Leave Records:
a. K Eswar Rao Vs Andaman & Nicobar Police.
“... Information has not been provided to the Appellant on queries 2 (a), (b) & (c). The PIO has initially stated that information with regard to 2 (a), (b) &(c) is NIL and the FAA has claimed it is third party information. Information regarding Public Servants and leaves taken by them or their assets is information which is not exempted under any of the provisions of Section 8(1)...”
CIC/SM/A/2011/001471/SG/15173 Dated 13-10-2011
b. Vinaya Kumar Vs Andaman Public Works Department
“....The Commission warns the PIO that information has to be sent within 30 days to Appellants and if any exemptions are claimed reasons must be given explaining how exemption apply. The Commission also notes that the FAA did not issue any order as required by the law. The FAA’s contention during the hearing that the information is exempt is flawed. The information sought is about the leave of public servants and such information cannot be construed as information which can be considered to be an issue of privacy of public servants. The disclosure standard set by the Supreme Court even for those who want to become public servants (Standing for elections) is much higher than that for ordinary citizens....”
CIC/SG/A/2012/001094/19151Dated 30-05-2012
20
29. Letter addressed to CS:
a. Patel Dhirubhai Vs Andaman Public Works Department
“... We do not agree with the Appellate Authority that some letters addressed to the Chief Secretary of A&N Administration can be exempted from disclosure merely because these are addressed to the Chief Secretary...”
CIC/SM/A/2010/000196 Dated 12-10-2010.
30. List of officers of doubt integrity:
a. V. Sarvana Kumar Vs Asst Secretary (Vigilance)
“... In the instant case the list of officers of doubt integrity is maintained by the Government and disclosing this information cannot be considered an invasion on the privacy of an individual. The citizens have right to know about the performance of the public servants and hence this information would have to be released...”
CIC/SM/A/2010/001230/SG/14200 Dated 23-08-2011.31. Missing Files:
a. Dr B Prabhuram Vs MG College, Mayabunder.
“... The Appellant had sought attested copies of three letters mentioned by him on July 2008. The PIO states that the said file of 2008 is not available. The Commission therefore directs the PIO to file a police complaint regarding the theft/loss of the said file giving the names of the officers who last handled the file. The PIO will provide a copy of the police complaint to the Appellant before 30 October 2011...”
CIC/SM/A/2011/000820/SG/14872 Date 27-09-2011
32. No knowledge in RTI:
a. Tipu Singh Vs Andaman Public Works Department.
“... the letter/application was mixed/clubbed with other papers, due to oversight and on the other hand says that he does not have the knowledge of the RTI Act 2005. No particular knowledge of the RTI Act 2005 was essential for Shri P. Ahmad, the Section In-charge of the ESI Section and he was duty bound to provide the information, as directed by the Public Information Officer...”
CIC/SS/C/2011/000205 Date 23-03-2008
33. No Penalty for Retired Employee:
a. RPJK Daniel Vs Tourism Department.
21
“...Now that the concerned officer has retired from the service, we cannot impose any penalty on him...”
CIC/SM/C/2009/000742 Dated 03-03-2011
34. Not Available Records:
a. Tapan Kumar Das Vs A & N Admn.
“... The Commission heard both the parties and noted that the one point information asked for by the Appellant was a certified copy of the Eighth Report of the Preliminary Standing Committee on Energy dealing with the Andamans. The Respondent’s reply was that the copy of the Report was not available with them. The Commission finds it difficult to accept the submission because as stated by the Respondents in the hearing, the copy should have been available with them. After all, the report directly concerns the Island’s Administration and if they did not have a copy, how could they possibly act on its recommendations?
The Commission, therefore, directs them to get a copy from the relevant authority and supply a copy to the Appellant...”
CIC/OK/A/2008/00510 Dated 25-09-2008
b. Akshay Pant Vs Health Services.
“... On perusal of the information so provided it has been observed that in the reply to query 1 some information has been provided. With regard to query 2,3,4,5 and 7 the PIO/Assistant Director (Admn.) states that no record is available. It appears from reply given in query 1 that some information is available with PIO/Assistant Director (Admn.). Therefore, the PIO & Assistant Director (Admn.), DHS is directed to provide the relevant information as available on record to query 2,3,4,5 and 7 and if no such information is available within the records of the public authority this will be clearly stated...”
CIC/SG/C/2011/001073/15982 Dated 28-11-2011
c. PS Saboo Vs Vigilance Department.
“... Mr. XXX, Assistant Secretary (Personnel) states that he has given the information with regards to query-E. He also states that certain information sought by the Appellant is not available on the records. The commission directs Mr. XXX to give this in writing to the Appellant which information sought by the Appellant is not available on the records...”
CIC/SG/A/2012/000539/18404 Dated 16-04-2012d. Rajendra Pal Vs Andaman Public Works Department
“..... In case there are any records or file which the appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records do not exist...”
22
CIC/SG/A/2012/000691/18587 Dated 25-04-2012
e. Prafulla Kumar Daas Vs Asst Commissioner, Mayabunder.
“... The Appellant has sought information about an application that he has filed in 1996. The PIO states that this is not on the records and hence he is not able to furnish the information regarding this...”
CIC/SG/A/2012/000978/18918 Dated 15-05-2012
f. Muneer Ahamed Vs Registrar of Coop Societies.
“... If the desired information was not available, it should have been admitted and the Appellant duly informed. There was no need to assure him to provide it shortly...”
CIC/SM/A/2012/000936 Dated 10-01-2013
g. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Education.
“... After carefully considering the facts of the case and the circumstances described by the Respondent, we still think that the CPIO should find out if the Directorate would have any more information about him, such as, his various transfer orders and any other personal papers. We direct the CPIO to search for such records and provide the copies to the Appellant within 15 working days of receiving this order. In case, no other record is found, even then, he shall inform the Appellant suitably...”
CIC/SM/A/2013/000146 Dated 25-06-2013
35. Not easily available:
a. Shamshad Ali Vs Asst Commissioner SA Dist.
“....The Respondents submitted that the delay was caused particularly because the relevant records were not easily available and had to be traced out from the settlement record which took a lot of time. While there might be some truth in this, it does not explain why the CPIO had not replied to the Appellant within 30 days of receiving his request and not informed the Appellant through any interim communication about the likely delay in the case even after the Appellate Authority had categorically directed the Tehsildar (P/B) to provide the information.
Not providing the information in time attracts the penalty provisions of Sub Section (1) of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act. Before imposing the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000 in this case for the long delay, we would like
23
both the then CPIO and the Tehsildar (P/B) to show cause why such penalty..”
CIC/SM/A/2012/001944 Date 15-03-2013
b. Shamshad Ali Vs Asst Commissioner SA Dist
“... The Tahsildar, Port Blair (Sunil Kumar) submitted that he had made efforts to locate the desired revenue documents with the Settlement Office but could not get it from them in time.
3. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made as above. We find the explanation given by the Tahsildar, Port Blair both unconvincing and disappointing. Even if it is admitted that the desired documents, being old, were not readily available, even in the Settlement Office, he should have kept both the Appellant and the CPIO informed about it. He did neither. Later, when the Appellate Authority directed him to provide the information within seven days, he also kept quiet. Now, he claims that he did not receive the order of the Appellate Authority at all. This is a clear afterthought because there is no reason why the order of the Appellate Authority should not have reached him when both of them were located in the same place. The sum total of all this seems to be that the Tahsildar, Port Blair was never very serious about dealing with this RTI request....”
CIC/SM/A/2012/001944 Dated 20-05-2013
36. Passenger List (Helicopter):
a. PS Saboo Vs Directorate of Tourism.
“... However, the list of passengers travelling by the helicopter service run by the Administration should not be provided being in the nature of personal information of the passengers concerned...”
CIC/SM/A/2012/000907 Date 14-02-2013
37. Personal Information:
a. Rama Krishna Rao Vs Naval Ship Repair Yard.
“... During the hearing, Lt. Cdr. Kabir submits that the appellant is seeking personal information regarding XXX without establishing any larger public interest and this is being done just to cause harassment to him (xxx).
24
Suffice to say that personal information can be disclosed only in the larger public interest. The appellant has not established any such interest...”
CIC/LS/A/2012/002430 Date 27-12-2012
38. Proof of Identity:
a. CS Usha Vs Paradip Port Trust.
“... The Commission has received a complaint dated 16.11.2010 from XXX u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, against the Paradip Port Trust, Orissa for deemed refusal to his RTI request dated 3.8.2010.
The Complainant is advised to submit a fresh RTI application along with proof of identity with IPO of Rs.10/- as desired by the PIO...”
CIC/SS/C/2011/000205 Date 15-06-201139. Punishments imposed:
a. Sheshrao Manikaro Mane Vs A& N Command.
“...The Respondent argued that since the Appellant had sought information about one of their sailors without revealing his relationship with that person, the CPIO had denied to part with the copies of those records. The Appellant revealed that he was indeed the father of the sailor. Irrespective of these facts, the information sought by the Appellant would hardly come under the exemption provision cited by the CPIO. The requests of the sailor concerned for transfer in the preceding six months and the documents regarding the punishments imposed on him clearly constitute part of normal administrative activities and cannot be classified as personal information...”
CIC/OK/A/2008/01326-SM Dated: 10-11-2009.
40. Qualification details:
a. Suraj Vaidya Vs Andaman Public Works Department
“.... the Appellant wanted was the educational and technical qualifications together with the copies of the certificates of Shri XXXX, Assistant Engineer (E & M). The Respondents denied the information taking recourse to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI-Act. This is not acceptable to the Commission as the documents asked for are in the public domain. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Respondents to provide to the Appellant all the information...”
CIC/OK/A/2008/00500 Dated 25-09-2008
25
b. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Education:
“... as far as the educational qualification of the said officer is concerned, he shall provide whatever details are available in the service records of the officer...”
CIC/SM/A/2013/000038 Dated 25-06-2013.
41. Retention Period:
a. Dr Pradeep Singh Vs Union Public Service Commission.
“... if the information is no longer held and has been destroyed following the retention schedule, the CPIO must clearly say so and indicate the year, if known, in which the relevant records had been weeded out...”
CIC/WB/A/2010/000010SM Date 13-01-2011
42. Section 4:
a. Saboo Vs Andaman Public Works Department
“... During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he had not seen any such disclosure till now although the Respondent insisted that the Department had fully complied with the provisions of the RTI Act. We ourselves visited the APWD website and found that the Department had, indeed, published a lot of details against each of the provisions laid down in this particular section and had also provided the links. However, we noticed some deficiency in some of the information disclosed in the website against three particular provisions, namely, 4(1)(b)(vi), (viii) and (x). The information disclosed is not to the point and needs to be revised and uptodate details must be published. Against 4(1) (b)(viii), the list of all classes of files maintained in the office of the public authority should be clearly stated under subject heads. Similarly, against 4(1)(b) (viii), the notifications or orders by which various councils/committees have been constituted by the Department, from time to time, should be published along with the details of the membership and against 4(1)(b)(x), the salary and other compensation paid to each officer and employee should be clearly published, it is not enough to indicate the pay bands only as has been done presently...”
CIC/SM/A/2012/001405 Dated 14-02-2013
b. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Industries.“... Some of the information which the Appellant has sought should, however, be proactively disclosed by the Department concerned. In fact, one of the clauses of
26
Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act requires the public authority to publish such data. Therefore, we would expect the Directorate of Industries to initiate action to publish all such data electronically through their website within a period of three months of receiving this order...”
CIC/SM/A/2012/001329 & 1646 Date 14-03-2013
c. S Gopinathan Vs Education Directorate
“... the Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the utilization of funds received from the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India towards higher education in various professional courses over a period of 7 years starting from the year 200506. The CPIO had offered him some 2211 odd pages against payment of photocopying charges. The Appellant had preferred an appeal but the first Appellate Authority did not pass any order. We have carefully considered the response of the CPIO. Under the provisions of Section 4(a)(b)(xii), every public authority is supposed to publish all relevant details regarding the concession, grants, subsidies given to the citizens. Therefore, as per this requirement, the relevant department should publish, from time to time, all the details about the scholarships they have been disbursing in the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. If they do not do that regularly, it would lead to dissatisfaction among the citizens and more and more people will seek such information under the RTI Act. It would only increase the workload of the CPIO. In the absence of transparency, it may also lead to corrupt practices. Therefore, we would direct the public authority concerned to keep publishing all the details about the scholarships disbursed by them, from time to time, immediately in their website so that people can access such information freely....”
CIC/SM/A/2012/001520 Dated 14-03-2013
d. Saboo Vs Gram Panchayat & Education Directorate.
“... The RTI Act mandates that the public authorities should have disclosed 16 types of information within 120 days of the Act coming into force. The RTI Act came into being in October 2005. Therefore, the disclosure under this Section should have been made before January 2006. Unfortunately, we have noticed that a very few public authorities in India have really complied with this mandatory provision. It is common knowledge that if such disclosures are made scrupulously, there would be little need for many citizens to ask for any information under the RTI Act...”
27
CIC/SM/A/2012/001632, 1633 & 1840 Dated 15-03-2013
43. Section 8:
a. Prohit Mohan Lal Vs Health Services.
“... The Commission asked the respondent if there was any justification for not providing the information. The onus of providing that denial of information was justified is on the PIO and no justification has been offered by the respondent for denying the information. Denial of information can only be justified based on the provisions of Section 8(1) and the PIO has to give reasons based on which the information was denied. Since no justification has been offered it appears that the denial of information was without any reasons...”
CIC/SM/A/2011/000844/SG/14899 Dated: 28-09-2011
44.Section 8(1)(d):
a. SK Mazumdar Vs State Bank of India.
“... Appellant’s RTI application dated 03.06.2009 contained for items of queries as follows:“(a) Details of Demand Draft issued in foreign currency of Grate [sic] Britain Pound during period 01 Jan 2008 to 31 Jun 2008.
Kindly provide Xerox copy of Bank Record Register indicating Name of Applicant, Value of Draft, Draft No. and the Signature of the Bank officers who issued the Bank Draft........
............. I am in agreement with the Appellate Authority that the information requested through appellant’s query at Sl.(a) attracted Section 8(1)(d) as it was a matter relating to commercial confidence of third parties who were the customers of the Bank. It is, therefore, directed that this item of information need not be disclosed...”
CIC/SM/A/2009/001866AT Date 29-10-2010
b. Dr Pradeep Singh Vs Union Public Service Commission.
“... The Appellant had sought a copy of the reserve list/panel prepared by the UPSC for the post of Director of Agriculture, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in November 1998. The CPIO had observed that not only the desired information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) and (e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act but it was
28
also not available being more than eight years old while its retention period was only three years.
4. During the hearing, the Respondent reiterated the same line of argument. We, however, do not agree that such information would come under the exemption provisions cited above. Neither this information is in the nature of commercial confidence or trade secret nor it is held in a fiduciary capacity. This is routine information, part of the administrative records arising out of the selection process. Therefore, if this information is available, it must be disclosed...”
CIC/WB/A/2010/000010SM Date 13-01-2011
45. Section 8(1)(e):
a. Dr Pradeep Singh Vs Union Public Service Commission.
“... The Appellant had sought a copy of the reserve list/panel prepared by the UPSC for the post of Director of Agriculture, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in November 1998. The CPIO had observed that not only the desired information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) and (e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act but it was also not available being more than eight years old while its retention period was only three years.
4. During the hearing, the Respondent reiterated the same line of argument. We, however, do not agree that such information would come under the exemption provisions cited above. Neither this information is in the nature of commercial confidence or trade secret nor it is held in a fiduciary capacity. This is routine information, part of the administrative records arising out of the selection process. Therefore, if this information is available, it must be disclosed...”
CIC/WB/A/2010/000010SM Date 13-01-2011
46. Section 8(1)(g):
a. Sujit Kumar Mazumder Vs CBI.
“... Furthermore, in relation to queries (a), (b), (c), (e), (h) and (i), information has also been denied on the basis of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act exempts:
29
“information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;”
In query (b), the Appellant has sought a copy of the Visitor’s Register of SP, ACB- CBI (Kolkata) for a specific period. The purpose of a Visitor’s Register is to record the names of all persons entering the premises of an organisation. Typically, the very nature of a Visitor’s Register is such that details of persons who have already visited a premise and recorded in the register can be viewed by a subsequent visitor while filling in his details. The Appellant has not sought information regarding a specific visitor(s) and therefore, the Commission does not understand how the exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act is attracted in relation to query (b).
As mentioned above, in queries (h) and (i), the Appellant has sought names of CBI officers who have been placed in the list of ‘doubtful integrity’ during the period January 2006 till date and officers against whom complaints are registered or contemplated and inquiry conducted or in progress. The Appellant has sought only the names of such officers and no other details whatsoever. Therefore, if only names of such officers are disclosed, the Commission does not accept that it would endanger their life or physical safety. In other words, the PIO, CBI (New Delhi) has failed to establish before the Commission that the denial of information in queries (h) and (i) under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act was justified.
However, as regards queries (a), (c) and (e), the Commission is of the opinion that there is some merit in the contention raised by the PIOs and disclosure of the information sought may attract Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, if it reveals names of persons who may have provided information or witnesses...”
CIC/SM/A/2011/000318/SG/13429 Dated 13-07-2011
47. Section 8(1)(h):
a. SK Guptha Vs Andaman Nicobar Police.
“... the Appellant had, in his application dated 16 June 2009, requested the CPIO for the copies of some documents concerning the requisition of the services of two constables by the CBI. The CPIO, in his letter dated 1 July 2009, denied the request on the ground that the information might impede the process of investigation and thus was exempted from disclosure under the Section 8 (1) (h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Against the response of the CPIO, the Appellant preferred an appeal on 2 July 2009. The Appellate Authority, in his order dated 29 July 2009, endorsed the stand of the CPIO. It is against this order that the Appellant has come to the CIC in a second appeal.
30
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. Both the parties were present in the Port Blair studio of the NIC. We heard their submissions. The desired information is purely factual and there is nothing confidential about it. Disclosure of such factual information of an administrative nature, namely, about the requisition of the services of two constables, cannot adversely affect the course of any investigation. The CPIO was not right in invoking the above provision of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in denying the information...”
CIC/SM/A/2009/001472 Dated 29-06-2010
b. Sujit Kumar Mazumder Vs CBI.
“... The PIO, CBI (Kolkata) has refused to provide information on queries (b), (c) and (e) on the basis of inter alia Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act provides as follows:
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-…
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;”
Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Merely because the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders is continuing, the bar stipulated under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is not attracted; it must be clearly established by the PIO that disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Ravindra Bhat, J. of the High Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC W.P. (C) No. 3114/2007 has observed as follows:
“13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be
31
reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in their terms; there is some authority supporting this view (See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.” (Emphasis added)
It is clear from the ruling of Ravindra Bhat, J. that the PIO, who is denying information under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, must show satisfactory reasons as to why disclosure of such information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. These reasons must be relevant and the opinion of the PIO that by disclosing the information, prosecution of offenders shall be impeded should be reasonable. The opinion of the PIO must be based on some material and cannot be a mere apprehension not supported by any evidence. Parliament did not intend exempting information while a process of investigation or prosecution was ongoing. It has stated that disclosure of information can be exempted only if it impedes the process of investigation or prosecution.
In the instant case, the PIO, CBI (Kolkata) has denied the information by simply quoting Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and that such disclosure would impede the process of prosecution. However, he has failed to explain how such disclosure would actually be an impediment to the process of prosecution, as laid down above by the High Court of Delhi. The denial of information by the PIO appears to be a mere blanket statement not supported by any cogent evidence or material on the basis of which it can be clearly demonstrated that such disclosure would in fact attract the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In other words, the PIO has failed to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act to prove that the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was justified.
On this basis, the Commission rejects the contention of the PIO that the information sought in queries (b), (c) and (e) was exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act...”
32
CIC/SM/A/2011/000318/SG/13429 Dated 13-07-2011
c. Akshay Pant Vs Department of Social Welfare.
“... The information sought under RTI: A copy of letter received from the parents /relatives stating there economic condition / financial condition of the children admitted in Orphan home and the same being recommended by Pradhans/ Councilors /NGO’s during public hearing in U. Governor, Secretariat.....
“... As regards query-8 the PIO has claimed exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act without giving any justification as to how Section 8(1(h) applies in the instant case. In any appeal proceedings the onus to prove that the denial of request was justified is on the PIO. He has not provided any justification in his reply given to the Appellant on 13/08/2010 nor has he offered any explanation at the time of hearing. A mere statement that information is being denied under particular subsection of Section 8(1) cannot be considered as ground for denial of information unless some reason is provided as to how the exemption applies to the information sought by the Appellant. In view of this the Commission does not accept the PIO’s claim for exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI act for the information sought by the Appellant at query-8. The Commission warns the PIO that denial of information without proper justification under RTI Act would invite the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
CIC/SM/A/2010/001432/SG/14809 Dated 23-09-2011
d. VC Guptha Vs Andaman Nicobar Police.
“... The PIO has claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Respondent states that the investigation was started in 2006 and the Chargesheet was filed in 2010. The Prosecution process is on and hence the PIO states that he has denied giving this information. The Commission asked the PIO to show how disclosing the information would impede the process of investigation.
The Respondent has not been able to establish that disclosing the information would impede the process of investigation. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts isclosure of “information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders”.
Justice Ravindra Bhat has held in Bhagatsingh vs. CIC WP (c ) no. 3114/2007-
“13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would
33
impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in their terms; there is some authority supporting this view ( See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.”
The PIO states that the information is not being disclosed since the prosecution is ongoing. The PIO has not been able to justify or give any reasons to show that disclosing the information would impede the prosecution which is ongoing. As per Section 19(5) “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”
Denial of a citizen’s fundamental right must be justified and the mere act of continuing an investigation cannot be used to deny citizens’ rights. In view of this, the Commission does not accept the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
CIC/SG/A/2012/001194/19248 Dated 14-06-2012
48. Section 8(1)(j):
a. SK Mazumdar Vs State Bank of India.
“... As regards the other items of information, its denial under Section 8(1)(j) does not appear to be correct. These relate to the attendance of officers and staff, their leave and “station duty”, temporary duty or nonbanking duty and the relief orders of two employees whose names found mention in appellant’s RTI application. These, according to me, are not
34
classified information, nor can they be said to be personal to the employees of the public authority...”
CIC/SM/A/2009/001866AT Date 29-10-2010
b. Inder Nath Vs ICDS Projects.
“... The Appellant had wanted the copies of certain documents relating to the ten Anganwadi workers/helpers recently appointed. The CPIO had denied the information by claiming exemption on the ground that this was personal third party information. However, after carefully considering the facts of the case, we do not find the decision of the CPIO/Appellate Authority right. The information must be provided as there is nothing personal about it. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order the photocopies of the educational qualification certificates and the proof of residence of the ten Anganwadi workers/helpers, recently appointed...”
CIC/SM/A/2010/000570 Dated 10-11-2010
c. Sujit Kumar Mazumder Vs CBI.
“... Further, the PIO, CBI (New Delhi) has denied the information sought in queries (h) and (i) on the basis of inter alia Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, information which has been exempted is defined as:
“information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: …”
To qualify for the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information: Words in a law should normally be given the meaning given in common language. In common language, we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an institution or a Corporate. Therefore, it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to institutions, organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.
35
2. The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have been given in the course of a public activity. Various public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. Public activities would typically include situations wherein a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorisation, or provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation.
3. The disclosure of the information would lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy.
In the instant case, the Appellant, in queries (h) and (i), has sought names of CBI officers who have been placed in the list of ‘doubtful integrity’ during the period January 2006 till date and names of CBI officers against whom complaints are registered or contemplated and inquiry conducted or in progress. There is no doubt that the information sought is “personal” information as it pertains to individual CBI officers. Every public authority is required to have information including details of any complaints registered or contemplated or departmental enquiry initiated/ conducted against any of its officers as a matter of record and more so because such officers are public servants discharging public function. Any complaint registered and taken cognizance of, or inquiry conducted or in progress, by a public authority, is necessarily a public activity. Disclosure of such information cannot be construed as unwarranted invasion of privacy of the officer concerned, as it concerns issues raised in the exercise of his public activity as a public servant. Moreover, such officer is accountable to the public and therefore, every citizen has the right to obtain information that may affect such officer’s credibility and integrity.
It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. ADR in Appeal (Civil) 178 of 2001 and W. P. (Civil) 294 of 2001 decided on 02/05/2002, observed that persons who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to declare inter alia their property details, any conviction/ acquittal of criminal charges, etc. If persons who aspire to be public servants are required to declare such details, it is only logical that the details of any complaint registered or inquiry conducted or in progress against any officer must be considered to be disclosable.
Therefore, the contention raised by the PIO, CBI (New Delhi) that the information sought under queries (h) and (i) was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is rejected.
CIC/SM/A/2011/000318/SG/13429 Dated 13-07-2011
36
d. P Kannan Vs Tehsidar Port Blair
“... The list of the Pre42 allottees has already been provided. The Administration does not have any data about the purchasers from these allottees. Therefore, they cannot obviously provide any further details about the sale and purchase of such land. In any case, the sale and purchase of land is ordinarily a transaction between two parties and personal to them and such information cannot be disclosed as per the provisions of section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. If the Appellant has any specific complaint against some Pre42 allottees indulging in sale of land in excess of their allotment, he should complain to the authorities. There is no information about such purchasers available with the authorities...”
CIC/SM/A/2013/000144 Dated 25-06-2013
49. Sensitise:
a. Chachayea Vs Port Management Board
“.... However, we would like to advise the CPIO to sensitise his staff members sufficiently so that whenever they receive any RTI application from any information seeker, they must put up to the CPIO immediately without any loss of time...”.
CIC/SM/C/2009/000820 Dated 14-12-2010
50. Signature of FAA:
a. Tapan Kumar Das Vs A & N Administration.
“....During the hearing, the Appellant brought to the notice of the Commission that the reply to his first appeal was signed by the PIO and not the Appellate Authority. According to the Respondents, the reply had the approval of the Appellate Authority. The Commission would like to clarify to the Respondents that this responsibility cannot be delegated and that both, the PIO and the Appellate Authority, must sign their replies themselves and not ask another official to do so on their behalf. This may be adhered to strictly....”
CIC/OK/A/2008/00668 Dated: 25-09-2008
51. Study leave:
a. Tapan Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture.
“....The grant of study leave to an employee is an administrative action and not personal information.
37
Therefore, we now direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the desired information along with photocopies of the relevant and available records within 10 working days from receipt of this order. In case, any record or document is not available, the CPIO shall, in a sworn affidavit, state so along with his reply. Besides, we also direct the CPIO to provide a copy of the study leave rules applicable at the relevant time, highlighting the specific rule, if any, regarding the need for obtaining a certificate every month from the Head of Department of the University concerned for payment of salary to the employee....”
CIC/SM/A/2009/001403 Dated 29-06-2010
52. Sub-judice:
a. Niyarjan Soreng Vs Dept of Environment & Forest.
“... The Commission heard both the sides and noted that several items of information were not provided to the Appellant as according to the Respondents, they were in the nature of clarifications and also because some of it was sub-judice. The Commission directed them to disclose all the information unless it was prohibited under a particular section/clause of the RTI-Act. The Commission also advised them to disclose the information which may be sub-judice but which has not been explicitly forbidden by the Court to be given...”
CIC/OK/A/2007/00634 Dated: 11-10-2007
53. Third Party:
a. Siva Balan Vs Directorate of Economics & Statistics.
“... The Commission feels that as the inquiry is complete, the report of the Inquiry Officer should be made available. However, the Commission considers this as third party information and the copy of the report may be made available to the officer concerned, if he so desires. Alternatively, the Appellant may procure an authorization letter from the third party to say that he is authorized to receive a copy of that report...”
CIC/OK/A/2007/00886 Date 25-01-2008
54. Time Limit for FAA:
a. Tapan Kumar Das Vs A & N Administration.
“... It is not clear if the appeal had been indeed received in the office of the Appellate Authority. This time, we would
38
like to give the benefit of doubt to the Appellate Authority. However, we would like to make it very clear that the Appellate Authority has to dispose of any appeal preferred to him within the period stipulated in Section 19 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act without fail...”
CIC/AD/A/2009/001463SM Dated: 29-04-2010
b. Zainudin Vs Andaman Public Works Department.
“...The appellant points out that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order in this matter within the 45 day period which is the maximum allowed under the RTI Act. The Commission directs the FAA to ensure that the orders are issued within the time stipulated in the RTI Act.
CIC/SG/A/2012/001181/19218 Dated 12-06-2012
55. Transfer of RTI Application:
a. PS Saboo Vs Directorate of Tourism.
“... We find that not all information has been given on the unacceptable ground that some of it is held by other offices of the Department. This is no excuse for not giving the information. If any information was held by any other office at the relevant time, the CPIO should have transferred the RTI application there rather than not giving any information. Keeping all this in view, we now direct the CPIO to arrange to collect all the information against the remaining queries and send to the Appellant within 15 working days of receiving this order....”
CIC/SM/A/2012/000907 Date 14-02-2013
56. Twenty Year old Information:
a. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Industries.
“... In one case, the Appellant wants all the details regarding the payment of transport subsidy almost since this scheme came into being. To provide such information for a period of nearly 20 years and that too, for the entire Islands, would indeed be an extremely voluminous exercise. It is somewhat like asking for the copies of all the records held by one office. The RTI Act itself clearly sets out a practical regime for disclosure of information by which the twin objectives of providing the information to the citizens and running the administration smoothly can be met. Searching out the relevant files and making relevant photocopies of those for a period of 20 years is not practical at all. Therefore, the suggestion of the CPIO that the Appellant should inspect the records himself or specify some limited records the copies of which can be given to
39
him appears to be eminently logical. Even allowing the Appellant to inspect all those records would itself disproportionately divert the resources of the Directorate or the District Industries Centre because they would have to make arrangements for such inspection and assign one or two officials for assisting in the inspection. Thus, either way, it is impractical that the Appellant can be shown all the records for inspection or given copies thereof. We would like to advise him to identify limited number of records that he would like and request the CPIO to provide the copies....”
CIC/SM/A/2012/001329 & 1646 Date 14-03-2013
57. Vacancy Register:
a. Chella Perumal Vs Andaman Public Works Department
“... During the hearing, the Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction that the CPIO did not provide him with the copies of the Vacancy Register. On the other hand, the Respondents submitted that the Department had not been maintaining the Register for the last 10-15 years and, therefore, this Register was not simply available with them. They admitted that although the Department should have maintained such Register, unfortunately, it had not been maintained. Since this document is not physically available, the CPIO cannot obviously produce one. If the maintenance of a Vacancy Register is a mandatory requirement under any of the rules followed by the APWD, we can only say that it should be immediately prepared and maintained. Not preparing and maintaining the Vacancy Register if it is required to be done so, is a gross violation of the government directives...”
CIC/SM/A/2012/001454 Dated 14-03-2013
58. Voluminous:a. Chandran Vs Asst Commissioner, SA Dist
“....It is also noted that there was a considerable delay on the part of the CPIO in responding to the RTI request in the first place. The Respondents explained that the delay was largely due to the fact that a vast number of records had to be searched to find out the relevant documents and, in the process, it took a lot of time. Besides, they also submitted that around the time the RTI application had been received, the Tahsildar, Ferrar Gunj who held the information got busy in election related work. We find the explanation reasonable especially in view of the voluminous information sought by the Appellant....”
CIC/SM/A/2009/001202 Dated 06-07-2010
40
b. P Kannan Vs Deputy Commissioner, SA Dist.
“... During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that the total number of case files relating to the grant or rejection of bar licences in this particular district during the specified period of six years would exceed one hundred and the compilation of the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the administration. They reiterated their initial offer that the Appellant could visit the office of the CPIO and inspect all the records and identify those records the copies of which could then be given to him. We tend to agree with this point of view. Looking to the manpower deployed in the local administration in Andamans, the compilation of huge volumes of records would certainly adversely divert the resources of the administration from its other core activities. Therefore, the Appellant should accept the offer for inspection of the records...”
CIC/SM/A/2010/001485 Dated 28-02-2011
c. P Kannan Vs Port Blair Municipal Council.
“... It appears that the Appellant had sought vary voluminous information and though the PIO had offered to provide the information the Appellant has not been wiling to pay the additional fees...”
CIC/SG/A/2012/000085/18025 Date 23-03-2012
d. P Kannan Vs Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs.
“...The demand of the Appellant is staggering in its scope. What he desires to have is virtually the entire records held in the office of the Directorate of Civil Supplies. He wants not only the copies of applications made by the residents of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands for Ration cards since 1995, for a period of nearly 17 years, but also the copies of the Ration cards. We understand that, in all, there are one lakh seven thousand Ration cards issued by the Directorate and its field offices. Therefore, the information demanded by the Appellant would include the copies of all these Ration cards and the supporting documents, such as, the application form, other certificates and documents supplied by the applicants and the file noting recorded by the respective officers. If any office were to provide this kind of information, it will have to stop its normal functioning for months. This will make a mockery of the RTI Act. In any case, now that the administration has put all the Ration cards in its website, the Appellant can freely visit that website and find out the details. We cannot allow him to
41
access all the records relating to all the Ration cards since it would completely paralyse the functioning of the office which holds such information. Either the Appellant specifies a limited number of records or abandons the idea of getting the copies of all the records. The choice is his. In case, he chooses to get only a few and limited number of records, he may make a fresh RTI application...”
CIC/SM/A/2012/001339 Date 14-03-2013
e. P Kannan Vs Directorate of Industries.
“... During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that the total number of files and documents relating to both the RTI applications would run into tens of thousands of pages and it would be impossible for making photocopies of the records and provide to him without disproportionately diverting their limited resources...”
SM/A/2012/001329 & 1646 Date 14-03-2013
f. Vinit Naidu Vs Social Welfare & APWD 25-06-2013
“... it is quite clear that the scope and extent of the information sought by the Appellant is too wide to be addressed by any CPIO within the stipulated period of 30 days. Besides, arranging for inspection of some 200 Anganwadis or hundreds of public works executed since the year 2003 would be a colossal task completely diverting in the process the limited resources of the respective public authority most disproportionately. In spite of that, we would like both the CPIOs to invite him to their respective office and to show him the desired records for his inspection limited only for two years, namely, for the year 20112012 and 20122013...”
CIC/SM/A/2013/000007 & 98
59. Water Connection:
a. Raj Pal Vs Andaman Public Works Department
“... We direct the CPIO to forward to the Complainant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order, the detailed information regarding the item 2, namely, the total number of water connections and public taps under the Executive Engineer, PHED as sought by the Complainant...”
CIC/SM/C/2009/001054 Dated 16-06-2010
60. Withdrawn the Second Appeal:
a. Dr Vijay Thiyagi Vs District Magistrate.
42
“... The Appellant did not turn up in spite of notice. The Respondents appeared before us and produced a communication from the Appellant addressed to the Central Information Commission dated 1 March 2013 in which the Appellant has stated that he wanted to withdraw the second appeal. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn...”
CIC/SM/A/2012/001863 Date 15-03-2013
43
